If you are new to the forums, you must register a free account before you can post. The forums have a separate registration from the rest of www.chronofhorse.com, so your log in information for one will not automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

It actually gets quite a bit more complex than that blackstallion. I'm...a little stunned at the info that I've just learned. I feel like I've stepped into one of those equine drama novels. Or something.

All I can say at this point is, I'm thinking that there are a lot of not-so-nice people masquerading as very nice people. This is crazy-town.

I think OGP has been very mature and reasonable about this situation.
While all details have not been shared, it is evident that OGP was lied to about the horse, and that may have cost that horse a very sad ending if the OP had not bought him. To me, that is unacceptable. And if it were me, there would be some unpleasant words, and I would make it my mission to let everyone that cared to listen know.
I don't call that a witch hunt. I call that having the fortitude to stand up for what I believe in. And sometimes that means letting people who do the wrong thing know I am ticked.
OGP did her best to look out for the horses best interest, short of keeping him forever. And still he wound up at auction because of a deceitful person.
I think it's nice that OGP cares about the horse and shared as much info as possible with his new family. And the OP is a wonderful person for taking him, and recognizing that he was once very loved.

Tru, it was couched as a giveaway with right of first refusal, in writing and in verbal agreement.

Originally Posted by vxf111

I think the person who was contractually obligated to offer a right of first refusal has some 'splaining to do to the OP... but thank god this didn't end badly.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've had the right of first refusal conversation with a lawyer who does specialize in equine matters, so I feel comfortable conveying the following information:

Unless you put a penalty clause of monetary value with a right of first refusal, there is nothing really binding the new owner to the ROFR. At least with a monetary penalty, one could take the person to court to recover the fees associated with breaking the contract. There have been numerous threads started by people who were upset to find the person they sold a horse to did not honor the ROFR, but there was no incentive not to.

In this instance, I am thrilled for the OP, OGP and of course, the lucky horse. A happy ending just in time for the holidays!

As for the person who lied about the horse? Inexcusable any way you look at it.

Yes, it is always a good idea to put a monetary amount of penalty for violating the terms of the free lease agreement. If you couch it as a penalty for either party who violates the agreement, then it doesn't look so threatening to lanyone who leases the horse.

There is a KY case where 2 horses were sent to slaughter instead of being returned to owner. The owner won monetary damages in court, but of course the horses died. I cited the case a few years ago here on coth. I'll need to go look it up.
But to put a clause for X amt of money if the free lease contact is violated will allow an owner to collect that amt of money even if the horse ends up in a great home as here. And will punish the wrongdoer who sent the horse off to an unknown fate. Sometimes the only justice is to punish the wrongdoer monetarily.

I have spoken to the person that I gave him to. After speaking with her and understanding what happened, my current belief is that she was taken for a ride big time by someone else, due to another really kind of insane and tragic situation.

I'm trying to find out more details, as I mentioned, because if I'm going to out someone it'd better be the right someone. If what I am learning and suspecting is true, then there's a bigger issue than I originally thought at play here, and like they say, the truth is much much stranger than fiction.

OGP
while she may have been taken for a ride, that likely would not have happened, had she honored her word to you. Whatever her situation, you should have been her first call, correct?
You sound very reasonable, and I applaud how you are handling this.
The most important thing is your old horse is safe and loved and sounds like the OP will keep him always

Yes Sobriska, that is correct, although given the extenuating circumstances, I'm leaning toward giving her some leeway. I still don't think it was right, but she has realized her role in this and is horrified by the result. We had a very long conversation and it was productive in many ways that enlightened both of us and can only benefit the horse and potentially other horses. Unfortunately there are a few other things at play here. I do not believe insurance is involved but good lord, it's crazy enough.

On this same topic, there is a horse listed/sent via FB to me today who was pulled from New Holland, and is clearly an ex-showhorse. He is safe, but they are trying to find his former owner. How can I get that picture/posting on here? Thanks!

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've had the right of first refusal conversation with a lawyer who does specialize in equine matters, so I feel comfortable conveying the following information:

I think I can do ya one better

Originally Posted by jenm

Unless you put a penalty clause of monetary value with a right of first refusal, there is nothing really binding the new owner to the ROFR. At least with a monetary penalty, one could take the person to court to recover the fees associated with breaking the contract. There have been numerous threads started by people who were upset to find the person they sold a horse to did not honor the ROFR, but there was no incentive not to.

In this instance, I am thrilled for the OP, OGP and of course, the lucky horse. A happy ending just in time for the holidays!

As for the person who lied about the horse? Inexcusable any way you look at it.

A contract is enforceable if it's for adequate consideration (there are other requirements but I'm simplifying for the sake of this discussion). Giving a sound, useable horse for free in exchange for a right of first refusal is very likely to be considered adequate consideration. You can also express in the contract the consideration but it's not necessary.

Valuing the damage causes by breach is a separate issue. A contract can be breached even if damages are very difficult to calculate. In fact, cases like that are litigated all the time (they don't settle for the same reason- hard to value). Adding a clause setting the damages for breach (a form of liquidated damages clause) certainly makes calculating damages easier. But that has nothing to do with enforceability. Separate issue.

I think I can figure out what the lawyer told you. S/he told you there really wasn't a point chasing down a first right of refusal violation if damages were going to be low or uncertain. I don't necessarily disagree with that advice from a practical POV-- but what you've actually written isn't quite right in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with.

Aaaand... none of us KNOW what THIS contract said... so it's all academic. But just based on the description of the horse, it sounds to me like it had value so I'm guessing there's an argument to be made that the contract had consideration and is enforceable.

There is allegedly (I have heard from several local sources) a mother and daughter pair going around the NE Maryland/ SE Pennsylvania area and scooping up free and cheap horses with promise of a good home, then taking them to the auctions.

Yes, it's a situation as old as the hills. No idea if the current scum is related to this case, but regardless - be careful.